Monthly Archives: April 2014

Group Decision Tip: High ground

Posted on by
Reply

In principle, groups often get bogged down in details (who should do what by when and how) and fail to stay on the high ground (strategic direction and guiding policies).

Group Decision Tips IconThe group as a whole has the unique perspective of seeing all that the group is doing, all the opportunities, all the threats. It is a view from the hill top. An individual group member has the unique perspective of seeing the details on the ground and has the best sense of how to actually implement policies in the field.

Practical Tip: As a group responsible for establishing plans and policies, consider the big picture and make high-level decisions that guide implementation. Resist the temptation to dictate details. Encourage the group as a whole to stay on the high ground and trust individuals to handle the trenches.

why is oligarchy everywhere? (part 2)

Posted on by
Reply

By 1937, John D. Rockefeller had accumulated $1.4 billion from his monopolistic oil business. That was 1.5% of the whole nation’s GDP, concentrated in one person. It conferred vast political power on him and his family. His descendents were to include New York Governor and US Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, Arkansas Governor Winthrop Rockefeller, West Virginia Senator and Governor John D. Rockefeller IV, and other prominent leaders of government and philanthropy. In Aristotle’s terms, the Rockefeller family and their peers added an element of oligarchy to the mixed regime of the United States.

However, per Thomas Picketty’s argument, economic growth was larger than the returns to capital from 1913-2000. Meanwhile, the Rockefeller clan grew in number. They earned money from their capital (and from other business activities), but the country grew at a faster pace. As a result, according to Forbes, there are now 200 descendents of John D. Rockefeller, and they have $8.5 billion in combined assets. Their total wealth is 0.05% of the nation’s GDP. It is shared 200 ways, leaving each Rockefeller with an average share of .0002% of GDP.

In short, John D. had a slice of the national pie 7,500 times bigger than that of his descendents. To the extent that today’s Rockefellers have an advantage in politics, it is mainly because the generations after John D. genuinely served the public and built up some honor. His son John D. Jr. quit active management of the family business and devoted himself to philanthropy with a strongly progressive tilt. Many of his children and in-laws then became public servants.

Arguably this happened because, in Aristotle’s terms, the Rockefellers lived in a constitutional polity, or at least a society that aspired to be one. In any proper constitutional polity, “The end of the state is the good life … by which we mean a happy and honorable life” (Politics 3.9). Congress forced John D. Jr., to testify about the Ludlow Massacre, and then Mother Jones herself persuaded him that his testimony had been false. “Mackenzie King was later to say that this testimony was the turning point in Junior’s life, restoring the reputation of the family name; it also heralded a new era of industrial relations in the country.”

In a constitutional order, the rich can grow richer than they were, but their ability to convert their wealth into power must shrink over time; they must be required to explain and justify their behavior; and they must be disciplined by the need to demonstrate public service.

But Aristotle observed a cycle of decline before his own day: “The ruling class soon deteriorated and enriched themselves out of the public treasury; riches became the path to honor, and so oligarchies naturally grew up.” Signs that the same decline is happening today:

  • The owners of capital and their heirs accumulate growing shares of GDP.
  • Capital can be converted into political power. Restraints are removed.
  • Wealth (inherited or otherwise) confers respect or honor, independent of genuine public service.
  • The very wealthy are insulated from their critics and do not have to explain themselves.

[This is a follow-up from yesterday's post. See also Ezra Klein's "Doom Loop of Oligarchy" posted today.]

The post why is oligarchy everywhere? (part 2) appeared first on Peter Levine.

Interview on GovLoop Innovation Report

Posted on by
Reply

We recently read a great interview over at EngagingCities on an interesting report detailing 20 significant innovations made in government last year, and we thought it would interest our NCDD members. We encourage you to read the interview below or find the original post here.

engaging cities logoIn late December,  GovLoop released a new report, “The GovLoop Guide to 20 Innovations that Mattered in 2013.” EngagingPlans editor Della Rucker recently sat down with Emily Jarvis, lead writer of the report and producer of the GovLoop podcast, the DorobekINSIDER, to talk about how Emily and her colleagues uncovered those innovations, and what they found.

DGR: Thanks for taking the time to talk, Emily.  Where did the idea for the20 Innovations that Matter report come from?

EJ:  2013 was a rough year for government people, especially federal employees.  We felt like most of the media wasn’t telling the whole story about government employees – and we knew that government is one of the most innovative entities out there.  So we wanted to highlight those achievements.  Last year (2012) we did a report on technology in government, so that was kind of a stepping stone.

DGR:  How did you uncover all these trends, and so much information about them?  There are a lot of concrete examples in this report. 

EJ: We had a team of 14 people who were involved.  We went through various resources that GovLoop had generated over the year – guides, trainings, the podcast, etc.  We ended up seeing four categories of stories that were very much about people in governments taking risks, trying something new.  We wanted to call those out.

When we had those four categories identifies, then we went back through the specific stories to find the five strongest examples.  We wanted to choose stories where we could make a strong case for why that innovation matters.   A great example is the I-Center in North Carolina, which allows government agencies to try out technologies before they buy them.  This innovation was powerful because resources are so tight, governments can’t take risks on buying the wrong equipment.  The I-Center was a great way to manage that risk.

We ended up with 150 stories, which was of course way too many.  So we put them all on Google Docs and out staff voted to end up with the 20 we highlighted in the report.  There’s probably another 125 that we could have put on the list!

DGR: What did you see that surprised you?  Did any trends surface that were unexpected?

EJ: We’re very tech-forward at GovLoop, so to see large agencies taking that risk and seeing what they can do with social media was great.  For example, the Department of the Interior’s Instagram feed… I kind of use my dad as a litmus test for things like this!  If it catches his attention, if it demonstrates to him what government can do, then I know it can have an impact.  He was so excited about the Department of Interior Instagram feed – now he has a different relationship with that part of the government!  He can see an agency at work.

What’s really amazing is how social media use like that example changes peoples’ views of government agencies and workers.  It showcases how cool a government worker can be!

In May 2013, when the Open Data Directive first came out from the White House, that was critical to another trend that we identified.  It basically said that all new federal data needs to default to open – it needs to be open to the public unless there is a necessary reason to not release it.  I don’t think that’s something that someone in the general public would necessarily understand or care about, but so many of the apps and projects that are being developed now are based on open data.  There are whole sectors of the economy that are based on government data.  But it’s hard for people who are outside of government to understand that.  It’s not just about opening it up to the public, but it’s also making it so that the data can be shared and used.  That’s transformative.

One of the coolest things I saw was what local governments are doing with libraries.  These institutions needed to find new ways to interact with people, and they are basically reinventing themselves as a tech hub.  For example, Anne Arundel County’s library is across the street from a new Target, and people who wanted to apply for jobs had to do it online.  But if you don’t have a computer or internet access, how do you apply for those jobs?  The library basically set up an employment center, and it helped people do their applications.  We’re seeing a resurgence in libraries that you wouldn’t have bet on a few years ago.  You see government changing.

Another fascinating example of government changing, and changing swiftly and responsively, came from the Boston Police Department.  As a lot of us remember, the first news that they had caught the fugitive from the Boston Marathon bombing came from the Police Department’s Twitter.  That tweet got 3 million retweets in the first three minutes.  Even two years ago, no one would have imagined that news would have been spread like that.  Even more fascinating, that department now has a chance to really do something different.  They have a huge audience, and people have trust in them.

DGR: What kinds of trends are you seeing with regard to Innovation Officers?  That’s been a subject of some debate, at least in the local government world. 

EJ: Governments are at a point where money is tight but the demand for their services is higher than ever.  We’re seeing that some cities have dedicated themselves to trying something new every chance they can.  They realize that it might not work, but that they can try and learn from it and do something better.  They’re becoming more agile.  It’s flipping the script on how people assume that government works.  The Innovation Officer becomes the person who is out on the leading edge, saying “follow me, let’s give it a try and learn from it.”

We talked to one of the White House’s Innovation Fellows – Clay Johnson.  He was working on improving the federal procurement process, and he noted that the biggest challenge was the senior leadership – he said, “they had to change the way they think.”   That’s incredibly hard for government employees.  They’re intensely cognizant of their responsibility as stewards of the taxpayer’s money, and they have to walk a very fine line between being responsible and enabling necessary new ideas.  There’s reasons why governments do things the way they do – there are checks and balances.  The Innovation Officer – or anyone who is supporting government innovation, whatever their title — can’t go crazy.  It’s more about having someone within the government or agency who is willing and able to say “Let’s try this, let’s fail smartly.”

DGR: If someone were flipping through this report casually, what would you want them to take away from it?  What’s the message you most want people to get out of it?

EJ: If someone were to flip through it like a magazine, I’d want them to realize that government isn’t made up of a bunch of bureaucrats.  Governments can be, and a lot of the time they are, on the cusp of innovation.

I’d want them to come away with a different interpretation of government employees, to understand that the media’s portrayal is not what they are.   Innovation is alive in government, and it matters!

Games

Posted on by
Reply

Today I’m headed to PAX East, the largest gaming convention on this side of the country.

Folks who aren’t gamers might conjure images of poker, Candyland, or perhaps…Dungeons and Dragons (Satan’s game). But really, what’s in a game?

Well, many things, actually. You can separate games by the type of equipment used – card games, dice games – or you could organize games by the type of play – strategy games, cooperative games.

And each game has its own personality.

You might play a game while waiting for something to happen – solitaire or Zombie Dice. Or you might play a game with a large crowd – Pictionary, kings, or Fluxx.

Perhaps my favorite types of games are those you play with a small group. You gather around and work together, or talk smack at each other, or perhaps both.

You tell jokes and stories, share a community and a gaming culture.

And once a year, all these people – these weirdos, nerds, and misfits who find their hobby widely disdained by those beyond their small circle of fellow gamers – once a year, these people come together.

And that is a community to behold.

So level up, distribute your skill points, and get in the game.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

why is oligarchy everywhere?

Posted on by
Reply

The first governments were kingships. … . But when many persons equal in merit arose, no longer enduring the pre-eminence of one, they desired to have a commonwealth, and set up a constitution. The ruling class soon deteriorated and enriched themselves out of the public treasury; riches became the path to honor, and so oligarchies naturally grew up. These passed into tyrannies and tyrannies into democracies; for love of gain in the ruling classes was always tending to diminish their number, and so to strengthen the masses, who in the end set upon their masters and established democracies. – Aristotle, Politics III

Recent headlines suggest that the Aristotelian cycle is happening globally–with the very important difference that Aristotle believed oligarchies turned into democracies, but the reverse seems to be happening now. For instance:

Why would this be happening? Mainly, it’s because we aren’t fighting back effectively; and I am optimistic that sooner or later we will. But in doing so, we’ll have to address the underlying currents that seem to cause democracies to drift into oligarchies unless we act.

First, consider the argument of Thomas Picketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, which–to be clear–I have not yet read. His point is that almost always, the return to capital has been greater than the economic growth rate. That means that the people who possess capital get progressively richer than everyone else, and their children get even richer than them. The period 1913-ca. 2010 was anomalous because growth exceeded the return to capital, meaning that people with wealth got richer, but their societies got richer still. That is also a period when democracy and socialism (between them) covered most of the global north. One might assume that market democracies boosted growth and lowered the returns to capital, and that would imply that they can do so again. But it’s also possible that the returns to capital were lower than growth for external reasons (technological change; war), which is why democracies survived. If the latter explanation is true, we are in trouble, because returns to capital again exceed growth and are expected to do so for decades to come.

Second, there’s the disturbing thesis of Matthew A. Crenson and Benjamin Ginsberg, Downsizing Democracy: How America Sidelined its Citizens and Privatized the Public. In my version of their argument: starting in the 1600s, certain nation-states allowed the mass public to have power. As a result, these states were able to mobilize their people to fight wars and to lend money to finance wars. In turn, the states that had the biggest armies either dominated everyone else or forced the others to imitate them. The exceptions were terrifying tyrannies that conscripted their men and seized their wealth, but they turned out to be fragile. By a kind of Darwinian process, the nation-states that were democracies prevailed; they were “fittest.” But then technologies of death became more sophisticated. Wealthy nations no longer needed lots of soldiers. They could win wars with a few well-equipped professionals. They only needed a small proportion of their people to finance these 21st century militaries. As a result, the Darwinian pressure to expand democracy is now gone.

Again, I am not proposing an inevitable drift to oligarchy. These are simply tendencies that we must confront.

The post why is oligarchy everywhere? appeared first on Peter Levine.

Questions Elected Officials Ask About Public Engagement

Posted on by
Reply

We wanted to encourage you to read the great insights that NCDD organizational member Max Hardy of Twyfords Consulting recently shared on the Twyfords’ blog. Max wrote some of his reflections on concerns that elected officials have shared with him recently about public engagement, and we encourage you to read them below or find the original piece by clicking here.

twyfordsI was enjoying a conversation and coffee with a friend the other day. After sharing a few stories with her about my work with executives and elected representatives, she asked, ‘Have you recorded any of this anywhere?’ I confessed I hadn’t.

Of particular interest to my friend were the questions that elected representatives have asked me in relation to collaborating with their communities. Perhaps you’ll find them of interest as well.

  1. ‘How do I know that an active minority will not monopolize the process?’
  2. ‘Collaborating takes time and I don’t have much of it. How can I find the time to do this properly?’
  3. ‘Every time I invite the community to consider an important matter they seem to be after blood. How can we have a reasonable and meaningful conversation about such matters (without getting bashed up)?’
  4. ‘Every time I ask what people want I end up with an unrealistic wish-list. Then when I don’t deliver on all of it people feel not listened to, and let down. How can I work with communities without setting up myself up for failure?’
  5. ‘People voted me in because they thought I could be a strong leader for them. How can I look like a credible leader when I keep asking for their help?’

I could go on but you get the drift I’m sure. It isn’t easy being a politician and I must say that the more time I spend with them, the more I appreciate just how hard their job is. What is clearer to me now is a set of assumptions that underpin many of their questions. This is what some of them are:

  1. People who have an agenda, or interests, different to the government’s, are a threat, and need to be neutralized or managed in some way.
  2. People expect me to be involved in everything and be everywhere to know that I am committed to the process.
  3. People generally behave badly if given an opportunity to influence an important decision.
  4. People are not capable of appreciating complexity, understanding other perspectives, deliberating or making wise judgments.
  5. Strong people need to be seen as having all the answers, and good at persuading others they are right.

What is interesting is that when we are guided by these pessimistic assumptions we are not helping any form of collaboration; invariably they provide the fuel for very unhappy processes that merely reinforce those assumptions.

It is not difficult to write a different set of assumptions that flip those 180 degrees. Just imagine how collaboration could be fuelled in a different way. What if we believed that collaboration with a community of interest with a diverse set of interests would deliver a more sustainable solution? What if we believed that the strongest leaders are those who encourage and support a process that taps into collective wisdom? What if we believed that people can be trusted to really step up when they are invited into genuine dilemmas? What if we believed that people could appreciate other perspectives if given the opportunity?

Like many others, Twyfords have been experimenting with democracy around complex issues for years. We are continually encouraged by what we see when we expect the best of people, which is why we have reason to be very optimistic about new ways to tackle our most challenging issues.

You can find the original version of the above post at www.twyfords.com.au/news-and-media/our-blog/questions-that-leaders-have-asked-me-over-the-past-18-months.

Ideal Power

Posted on by
Reply

I think a lot about power. Or at least I write a lot about power.

Without doing an inventory of my own writing, I suspect that much of my language seems negative – or at best critical – on the subject. Analyze power. Fight power. Systemic power…entrenched inequality resulting from systemic power. These are all phrases I’m likely to rattle off at a moment’s notice.

But while I think power is a critical topic, I wouldn’t say that power is intrinsically bad.

I would, however, say that power is intrinsic.

That is, power is a feature of the universe. It exists. It’s just there.

In a physics sense, power is the rate of work over time (P=W/t), where work is a force exerted an object. Changing the speed, direction, or characteristics of any object takes work, and work done over time is an expression of power.

A system without an exertion of power is static. Objects at rest stay at rest. Objects in motion stay in motion. And nothing ever changes that. No power, no work, no force exerted on any object. Static.

Being uninspired by the static universe, I prefer to embrace power as an articulation of change. Of the dynamic nature of existence. Of life.

But what does that mean in terms of social interactions?

A world in which no person has power over any other person at any time seems…unfeasible at best.

First, there are the simple cases of the very young or the infirm. Should a newborn infant have total and complete autonomy? I’m not child development expert, but I’m going to go with no. Perhaps there are certain rights that every person should have – a newborn shouldn’t be abused, for example – but the reality seems to be that a newborn can’t make all its own decisions.

For better or for worse, a mother has power over her child.

Once you’ve admitted power into your universe, the rest is just quibbling over details. Should people become autonomous at 5? At 10? At 18?

That’s a topic for rich debate, and noticeably different from an argument over whether power should exist in this adult-child relationship at all.

There are, of course, deep problems of power within our society. Those in power tend to grow and maintain power, while those without power tend to be permanently shut out of power – suffering dire consequences as a result.

I’d be the first to argue that the distribution and perpetuation of power is a problem, but that’s different from arguing that the existence of power is a problem.

In some ways, that frames the discussion differently. Instead of talking about how we should fight the power or build our collective power, perhaps we should step back and ask what power would look like in an ideal society.

It would still exist – it would have to. But it would be spread more fairly and subject to change.

Perhaps we would all have equal power, but only when averaged across an ever shifting sea of interactions.

You ask me a question about my expertise and I have the power. I ask you a question about your expertise and you have the power.

The power’s still there, but, you know – it all comes out in the wash.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Ideal Power

Posted on by
Reply

I think a lot about power. Or at least I write a lot about power.

Without doing an inventory of my own writing, I suspect that much of my language seems negative – or at best critical – on the subject. Analyze power. Fight power. Systemic power…entrenched inequality resulting from systemic power. These are all phrases I’m likely to rattle off at a moment’s notice.

But while I think power is a critical topic, I wouldn’t say that power is intrinsically bad.

I would, however, say that power is intrinsic.

That is, power is a feature of the universe. It exists. It’s just there.

In a physics sense, power is the rate of work over time (P=W/t), where work is a force exerted an object. Changing the speed, direction, or characteristics of any object takes work, and work done over time is an expression of power.

A system without an exertion of power is static. Objects at rest stay at rest. Objects in motion stay in motion. And nothing ever changes that. No power, no work, no force exerted on any object. Static.

Being uninspired by the static universe, I prefer to embrace power as an articulation of change. Of the dynamic nature of existence. Of life.

But what does that mean in terms of social interactions?

A world in which no person has power over any other person at any time seems…unfeasible at best.

First, there are the simple cases of the very young or the infirm. Should a newborn infant have total and complete autonomy? I’m not child development expert, but I’m going to go with no. Perhaps there are certain rights that every person should have – a newborn shouldn’t be abused, for example – but the reality seems to be that a newborn can’t make all its own decisions.

For better or for worse, a mother has power over her child.

Once you’ve admitted power into your universe, the rest is just quibbling over details. Should people become autonomous at 5? At 10? At 18?

That’s a topic for rich debate, and noticeably different from an argument over whether power should exist in this adult-child relationship at all.

There are, of course, deep problems of power within our society. Those in power tend to grow and maintain power, while those without power tend to be permanently shut out of power – suffering dire consequences as a result.

I’d be the first to argue that the distribution and perpetuation of power is a problem, but that’s different from arguing that the existence of power is a problem.

In some ways, that frames the discussion differently. Instead of talking about how we should fight the power or build our collective power, perhaps we should step back and ask what power would look like in an ideal society.

It would still exist – it would have to. But it would be spread more fairly and subject to change.

Perhaps we would all have equal power, but only when averaged across an ever shifting sea of interactions.

You ask me a question about my expertise and I have the power. I ask you a question about your expertise and you have the power.

The power’s still there, but, you know – it all comes out in the wash.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Save Medialab Prado!

Posted on by
Reply

For people who care about socially engaged, commons-minded tech innovation, there are few institutions in the world as bold and courageous as Medialab Prado, in Madrid.  For the past ten years it has been a technology lab, an interdisciplinary forum, a space that welcomes public participation, a hub for citizen activism, and a host of provocative workshops and conferences.  And yes, the Medialab Prado has also been deeply engaged with the commons paradigm as an important way of shaping a better, more socially constructive future. 

Now, after a decade of fantastic work as a pioneering social/technological laboratory, the Madrid city council is threatening to let a giant telecom corporation, Telefónica, take over its new building.  The municipal government – apparently clueless about the international stature and significance of Medialab – is in talks to let Telefónica use the brand new building that MLP moved into less than a year ago. Telefónica wants to open its own startup incubator there. The move  would cast Medialab into limbo, without any assurance of appropriate space in a suitable location or adequate funds.  

Many of us who participate in the international tech, P2P, commons or activist worlds are appalled at this recent turn of events.  Doesn’t the Madrid political establishment recognize the immense value that Medialab Prado has for the city and Spain (and the rest of the world)? 

Doesn’t it realize that Medialab is a magnet for the most exciting thinkers, technologists and social activists – a place that elevates Madrid’s reputation and Spain’s leadership in cultural and tech circles?  After citizen uprisings in so many countries around the world, does the Madrid political establishment not appreciate the need to explore new models of social outreach and public engagement, as Medilab Prado does?

read more

PAGE Fellowship Opportunity for Grad Students

Posted on by
Reply

We recently heard about a great opportunity for our grad student members from NCDD supporting member Steven Kull, and we wanted to make sure to share it with you. The Imagining America initiative is a great venue for scholars to integrate civic engagement into their work , and we encourage you to learn more about their PAGE network below or by clicking here. 

Publicly Active Graduate Education (PAGE) is Imagining America’s network for publicly engaged graduate students in humanities, arts, and design. PAGE enhances the theoretical and practical tools for public engagement, fosters a national, interdisciplinary community of peers and veteran scholars, and creates opportunities for collaborative knowledge production. The PAGE consortium, made up of alumni and allies of the program, promotes opportunities for mentorship and peer support from IA’s network.

Imagining America (IA) invites graduate students with a demonstrated interest in public scholarship and/or artistic practice to apply for a 2014-2015 PAGE Fellowship. Awardees receive $500 to attend a half-day Fellows Summit on October 8th and the 2014 Imagining America national conference, October 9th-11th in Atlanta, Georgia.

Fellows also commit to participating in a yearlong working group to promote collaborative art-making, teaching, writing, and research projects. PAGE alumni and Fellows will work together to organize monthly conference calls around themes and questions relevant to the needs of publicly engaged graduate students. In doing so, PAGE looks to foster a cohort of Fellows interested in pursuing collective and innovative scholarly practices.

Fellows are asked to be active participants in the Imagining America network through posting on the IA blog, presenting at regional meetings or campus workshops, or other related professional convenings. Additionally, each Fellow will be tasked with co-facilitating a webinar or workshop during the 2014-2015 academic year. Past examples include: book group discussions, virtual dinner parties, guest lectures, skill-building demonstrations, and music performances.

Learn more about PAGE from its 10th Anniversary Retrospective Video:

Graduate students from IA member campuses at all stages of their MA/MFA/PhD programs may apply to be PAGE Fellows.

The submission deadline is May 16th.

For more information and to apply, click here.